APPENDIX. NOTE A. Page 4. Meaning of the term dia0ýkη as applied to the Sacred Writings. THE appellation usually given in the New Testament to the sacred writings is ʼn ypapǹ or ai ypapaì, sometimes rà iɛpa ypáμpara. In the writings of Paul, however, frequent reference is made to the difference between what he calls ἡ παλαιὰ διαθήκη and ŋ kaivǹ diałńýkŋ (2 Cor. iii. Heb. ix. &c.); and though in these passages the reference is obviously not so much to any written documents as to the covenant, the promise, the engagement of God with his people under the old and the new dispensation, yet as that was the object of a written revelation, the term designating it may very legitimately be extended to designate the documents in which it is announced. The Apostle himself appears to have had this in his eye when, in writing to the Corinthians (2 Ep. iii. 14), he speaks of the dváyvwois tñs . d. the reading of the old covenant, an expression which necessarily conveys the conception of a written document; so that if we have not direct inspired authority for this usage of the word, we have the nearest possible approximation to such authority. The word diaonen having two meanings, that of a testament and that of a covenant, it has been a controversy of long standing, in which of these senses it must be taken when applied to designate the collected body of the Jewish or Christian Scriptures. The only proper mode of determining this controversy, appears to be to inquire in what sense the word is used by the sacred writers themselves, and especially by Paul, from whose use of it the appropriation of it to the purpose in question is derived. Now in regard to this point, it is admitted on all hands, that the almost unvarying sense attached to it in the Scriptures is that of covenant. By the LXX. it is used to express the Heb. was and in the writings of the Evangelists and Apostles there is only one instance, respecting which the mass of interpreters are not agreed in attaching to the word the same meaning. That occurs Heb. ix. 15-17, where the Apostle is speaking of the necessity of the death of the dialéμevoç, in order to the validity of the dialnкn. In the common version, the former of these words is translated "Testator," and the latter "Testament;" but as they may also be translated "the appointed victim" and "covenant," the question is, which of these is to be preferred? Dr. Macknight (in loc.) has followed the latter rendering, and the reasons which he has assigned for this appear perfectly satisfactory. 1. In what sense could the law of Moses be called a testament, which is a disposition of benefits to a person, which he may either accept or refuse as he pleases, seeing its obligations were imperative upon all who lived under it? 2. How w the Mosaic law, if a testament, established by the death of the testator? 3. If the gospel dispensation, as Christ's testament, was confirmed by his death, was it not as a testament or will rendered null and void by his resurrection? If a testator after being dead revive again, does his will continue of force? 4. What connexion have the office of a mediator and the sprinkling of blood here mentioned, with the making of a will? or what is meant by transgressions of the former will, to atone for which the maker of the new will died? Do not all these things relate to a covenant, and not to a testament? And, in fine, if Christ died merely that his will might have effect, his death cannot be regarded as having been the procuring cause of the blessings thus offered to his people; whereas, if we regard the Apostle as speaking here of covenants, we are taught to view our Lord as the great sacrifice by which the covenant was confirmed. On these grounds, Macknight appears to me to argue conclusively in favour of the rendering which he gives to this passage. Among the early Greek fathers, the word dialńkŋ is used in both of the senses above given, so that from their writings. nothing certain can be determined as to the meaning attached by them to the term when employed to designate the sacred writings. By the Latin fathers, the word used is Testamentum, and that this usage must have prevailed from a very early period is obvious, not only from the occurrence of it in the writings of Tertullian, but from his express declaration that this was in his day the common designation of the two divisions of the sacred volume; "alterius Instrumenti," says he, adv. Marc. lib. iv. c. 1. "vel (quod magis usui est dicere) Testamenti." This would seem to show that among them, the idea of a Testament prevailed. The argument from this, however, in favour of our adopting the same rendering of dialńn may be met by the suggestion that the usage of the Latin fathers in this respect is probably to be traced to their translating dianкn into what was its primary and proper equivalent in their tongue, without adverting to the fact that, as used to designate the books of Scripture, it bore a secondary and derived meaning. It may be doubted, moreover, whether the word Testamentum was really used in its ordinary meaning of "a Will," when thus employed by the early Latin fathers. Thus the old translation of Irenæus (adv. Hær. lib. iii. c. 11) makes him speak of four testamenta which have been given by God to the human race, viz. the Adamic, the Noachic, the Mosaic, and the Christian, thus clearly using the word in the sense of covenants. Tertullian also in the passage cited, whilst he states that Testamentum was the usual word, seems inclined to substitute for it, at any rate uses as equivalent to it, the word Instrumentum, which means simply a confirmatory or authoritative document,* which would seem to indicate that whilst the word Testamentum * "Instrumentum est Scriptura ad rerum gestarum fidem faciendam confecta." Vitriarius, Universum Jus Civili Privatum, &c. lib. iv. tit. 17, p. 1004. -Comp. Quintil. Inst. Orat. lib. xii. c. 8. |